Is a Multi-Player Only Game Worth Sixty Dollars?

It’s no secret that video game campaigns have become shorter over the years. Defeating an RPG on the SNES could take more than one hundred hours. But there are no rose coloured glasses here, a large amount of this content was padding. The fact that a game’s length was long was due to padding jaded both gamers and developers towards making a game long for the sake of being long.
(Industry, TitanFall)

Depends on the quality and content of the game. The cynicism can't be leveled at all multiplayer only games. If you enjoy it for a year then you could easily argue it being worth it. Hate it then its obviously not worth it. Personal preference.

I think it depends on what the game offers compared to whatever the standards for that genre are. For example, if the norm for $60 is 10 multiplayer maps, splitscreen, singleplayer and an offline co-op mode, for a multiplayer only game to have value at the same price, you'd think they'd have to offer up something to compensate, like more maps or more game modes.

If two restaurants are offering a meal for $50 - one is a complete steak dinner with a couple of sides and the other is just a steak and nothing else...you'd hope the meal that's just a steak either offers more steak for your dollar or it's one damn fine piece of meat. Otherwise, where's the value?

I think a multiplayer only game could be worth $60, but it'd better offer something extra compared to it's direct competition to make up for it's shortcomings. Otherwise, it's simply not worth it. As the article states, either make up for it elsewhere or lower the price.

So going by your logic a heck of a lot more people buy the ps4 over the xb1 does that mean its not the better console?

I believe that sometimes sales are indicating a reliable level of quality when the competing sides are pretty similar.

Toyota vs Ferrari? Really the former has a price average car line up of about $15-20000 while the latter over $150,000. Yes Toyota performance wise is not better than Ferrari but when reliability comes in question Toyota wins hands down! Not a good comparison...

If you ask me it all comes down to a combination of consumer awareness, consumer financial state, hype susceptibility and personal preference...

@UltraNova he's not talking about systems, he's talking about games and it's true sales don't always equal quality. If you're going to get 100hrs of straight fun quality multiplayer gaming for $60, that doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. Where as you might have a 10-15hr single player game that's $60, I guess it's all about the experience you get for the money you spend.

The way I look at it is if you take a multiplayer game you are the one responsible for getting enjoyment out of matches which later on will become repetitive because you've of played them so many times in the space of a few hours. However with a single player game it's up to the developers to craft a single player experience that you will enjoy, since you won't be replying the ENTIRE single player game in a few hours like how you could play dozens of multiplayer matches in most likely the same time frame then it's up to the developers to give you the best experience you can.

I mean obviously with multiplayer the developer has to do the work aswell, they have to create the maps, the structure, balance it etc but at the end of the day you replaying it over and over is what is making you feel like you've gotten your moneys worth while with single player games it's mostly up to the developer to craft an experience for you which you'll play through....then you have collectibles, and maybe side quests or other smaller things to keep you going.

I think I would get more enjoyment from something like Assassins Creed 4 doing EVERYTHING (Main missions, side missions, collectibles, exploring, upgrades, hunting etc) then doing the same old repetitive modes over and over and over again, which you would find in any online game. If you were given only the online of AC4 would you feel satisfied enough...of course not.

You could play death match dozens and dozens of time in the space of a few hours but if you were playing AC4 for example you'd be not even half way through the main story, by the time you've fully finished a game like that a person who plays only multiplayer games would of been long gone off it and onto the next multiplayer type game. (By the way I'm just using AC4 as an example)

This is a silly opinion at best. I don't see how anybody would get that quickly bored with their game unless they had they had a very short attention span, or they really liked to burn money. There are millions of people who play multiplayer only oriented games (LoL, Quake, CS:GO, Dota 2, WoW) and have been doing so for decades now. It's really ridiculous to say it's not worth 60 dollars just because it's a multiplayer only title. The real question should be whether or not the game is as enjoyable as you want it to be for 60 dollars.

Besides, it's odd how you cite Assassins Creed 4 as a good way of putting a bunch of stuff in the game when it's usually already been done in all the games before it. Again, it really comes down to enjoyment. There were probably just as many side quests and collectibles in AC4 as there was in AC3, however I felt like my 60 dollars was justified with AC4 because I ENJOYED the game. Not because of how much padding it had in it.

I'm not saying you would get QUICKLY bored of the online what I'm trying to say is (going by my example) by the time you get half way through AC4's main quest for example you would of played deathmatch (or other modes) so many times that it would start to feel a tad repetitive.

By the time you finish everything in your lengthy single player game (which would take a while) the other person could be on his second/third brand new multiplayer game or even be on an old one....lot of people go back to different online modes when it takes their fancy.

I mean hey if you get enjoyment out of a multiplayer only game fair enough but what I'm trying to point out is it's really up to you to see if it's worth it since you would have to have a very long attention span to do the same matches over and over again. You load up, find a match, pick map, play some rounds, end match, search for new playlist...rinse and repeat.

I chose AC4 as an example because it was the game I'm playing on at the moment, thats all. First game that popped into my head.

"Not because of how much padding it had in it."

You do realise I'm not trying to say thats the ONLY reason, don't you....I'm just trying to say that kind of thing helps when trying to justify paying full price to a multiplayer only title. With some single player games there is a lot of variety, multiplayer games...not so much.

I mean look at DLC, all you really get for online games is maps, new weapons/skins, modes etc but with single player it can be anything the developers like. I'd rather pay for something like Shivering Isles then Five map packs.

"With some single player games there is a lot of variety, multiplayer games...not so much."

That's only an opinion though. Variety can be what you make of it. Others might find variety where all you see is repetition. For instance, in a game like Battlefield, there are a ton of weapons, multiple classes, a bunch of gadgets and gear, vehicles, destructability, multiple support options, etc.

For the bigger multiplayer fans out there, these things can take on a huge amount of variety, and the game moves away from simply being about killing the other guy.

Things one can do (using BF for this example)

1. Provide sniper support (spotting, picking off enemies) 2. Be the guy going around with an automatic weapon thinning out the herd (for fun, or to help team mates capture objectives. 3. Hide in a tactical spot, providing spawn points close to objectives for other team mates, while also planting a spawn beacon in another spot and a motion sensor to provide even further tactical support. 4. Get in a tank and provide offensive support 5. Get in a tank and provide transportation 6. Get in a chopper and provide offensive air support against ground units, or provide air support against planes and other choppers 7. Get in a chopper as a passenger engineer whilst providing repairs for the pilot and also providing offensive support against other choppers with a stinger missile. 8. Stay at and defend a point the whole match to ensure it stays safe 9. Be the guy that's constantly running to capture the next point as you finish with one, go to another. 10. Be the guy that heals and revives your teammates 11. Be the guy that gives your team mates ammo when they need it. 12. Be a jet pilot and take out other jets and helicopters 13. Have fun by unlocking and experimenting with every single weapon, or try and complete different challenges to unlock everything you can(vehicle weapons, soldier weapons, soldier gear, customization things like gun camos, soldier camos, different knives, etc.) 14. Be the guy that's just constantly driving people around to objectives (whether it's in an attack boat, tank, apc, helicopter, jeep, atv, dirt bike, smaller attack boat, jet ski).

I could list quite a few more things, but I'm sure you get the point of what I'm trying to say, the point being that people such as myself can find a lot of variety in a multiplayer game. There are a ton of different roles to play, and a lot of ways to play them. My personal favorite is to blow up vehicles (tanks, helicopters, jeeps, any ground or water vehicle) with RPG rounds.

Someone who doesn't much care for multiplayer might look at that list and say "but those are pretty much all just slight variations of the same thing", and to those people, it might be, but it isn't to me. I could say the same about many of the aspects of single player games.

You would be surprised what little things people can think up to vary the multiplayer experience for themselves.

But I do think you have the right overall viewpoint on the matter, in that it's up to the individual person to decide whether or not the game is worth it to them. I'm just trying to point out to you, that to MULTIPLAYER FANS, there can be quite a lot of variety and ways to vary the experience, even though those ways might not be so obvious to those who don't play (or like) multiplayer games, they are there.

Look, all I have to say is that if the game is good the game is good. There are THOUSANDS of people who still play games like CS, Starcraft BW, Quake, and multiple other multiplayer only games because they're GOOD. You only get bored with something if it happens to be bad.

You're so fixated on the fact that it will be repetitive, when in fact every single match can play completely different from the last you played. People play CoD and Battlefield multiplayer year round on nearly all of the released titles and don't get bored with it.

Again, you like saying a game needs variety, yet you use Assassin Creed as an example even though they reuse assets and side quests in nearly all their games. Quake III had 4, count 4 different game modes and around 26-27 maps total. I bet you 100 dollars that you can boot up Quake III right now and still find a playable and active lobby. Quake III released over a decade ago, and is still being played by people in 2014, not because it has a wide variety of sidequests and missions, but because it's fun. Ya know, the main point of any video game.

"Look, all I have to say is that if the game is good the game is good"

So am I but the article is about if it's worth it....yeah it might but for how long. If your not going to get a ton of replay value from it then is it worth the investment, especially when money for some is hard to come by these days.

Things can be good and you can still get bored with them. I played a crap load of The Last of Us online mode after I did everything in the single player...I ended up playing so much I burned myself out. Maybe I'll go back to it, maybe I won't....who knows but if that game didn't have the single player I probably would of sold it ages ago.

"Again, you like saying a game needs variety, yet you use Assassin Creed as an example even though they reuse assets and side quests in nearly all their games"

Oh come on, they are the same structures but they are always different when it comes to missions and such....especially the main ones. Sure the Assasin Contracts play out the same and yeah maybe the collecting is the same aswell but with the new enviorments and time eras, along with brand new features they give us they feel different enough for us not to notice....however with some multiplayer games it's not the case. As I've said

Find Multiplayer Match

Start game

Play a few rounds

Manage loadout/gear.unlocks

Find new match

Rinse and repeat

That gets more old then when your in a single player game even if it's something like AC where some gameplay elements have been done before.

I mean look how long Mario has been going for, I'd take playing Super Mario 3D World over anything online related and would happily pay full price for a single player only game because it's worth it.....more then the same rinse and repeat matches you do on nearly every online game, which houses the same boring structure

If you like it fine, I'm not arguing to that but please don't say someone's opinion is silly just because you don't agree with it

Counter strike players have been playing the same game off and on for 10+ years almost every other day with some breaks for some. TF2 still has players that's been many people's main game for 7 years. You get 1000s of hours from certain Multiplayer games and if you absolutely love It then you won't become too Tired of it (sometimes you gotta take a couple of months off to not burn out) my point is the replay valuevis insanely high. Hell look at WOW or Eve Online. Still going very strong. I Don't have an example of something lasting as long as say Pac man because Multiplayer has only been around for around 18-15 years but I'm sure that in 2025 many people will STILL be playing Counter strike or TF2.

Actually, most SP games are very repetitive, specially the one you mentioned, and are way too predictable.

As I read one of these days from one old MW2 designer, the MP games have to be designed in a way that new people can play, but experienced players keep finding better ways to improve their knowledge and skills.

MW, WaW and MW2 are masterpieces when it comes to level design. In no other MP shooter I've seen so much attention to the position of every object on the map. Every crate, window, door has or blocks a line of sight that means something on their maps.

Sadly, on any subsequent CoD games, this has simply vanished.

Anyway, my point is: usually, SP games are WAY more repetitive than MP games, which are much more unpredictable.

Another thing: What makes MP games so compelling is the improvement of the players' skill, so you'll be playing the same 10, 15 maps, but really differently than one week before.

I know people will disagree. It is the internet trend now, to say that SP games rock, even when 99% of these are ultra boring and only recycle the ideas and mechanics of the other games, but I don't mind.

Multiplayer isnt for everyone. I played all the call of dutys and from battlefield 2 - BF4 but the first multiplayer I played was Black Ops II. Like Ezz2013 I prefer single player campaigns however I enjoyed the titanfall beta so Im on the fence with this one.

MMO's, well thats different in some areas, I think the article was talking more about games which houses multiplayer games with deathmatch and all that stuff.

When you buy an MMO you know what your getting and they are usually supported and packed way more then what other "death match" type multiplayer only games have

Destiny for example will most likely be crammed full of more content then a game like Titanfall will ever have, even with DLC ....yet your paying the same price for them. I think thats what the article is trying to say.

Foxtrot. Dude. 60 bucks is good. Especially when you compare it to mmo's which have expansions that are 60 additional bucks, as well as 15 bucks a month just to play ONE GAME. Titanfall has enough content for the money, trust me.

Playing with your friends and family over long distances and every game is a competitive math is really worth. Much better long term investment than a single only player game like inFamous because once you beat it, now what?

I'm certain if he spent 800 hours on an indie game, he'd be okay with a 60 dollar price tag. Besides, you're using over bloated budgeting for development purposes (CoD comes to mind) for a reason why a game should be 60 dollars.

@Ducky, the ceiling limit is meant to be $60 US. Game prices should never be open ended.

@Robochobo, People have already put hundreds of hours into Don't Starve, doesn't make it worth $60. I've put over 300 hours into Warhawk and it is easily in my top 5 games of lastgen but that doesn't make it worth full price.

Yes, because you pay for quality not quantity of time spent. A 5 bedroom mansion does not cost the same as a normal 5 bedroom house. You may spend the same amount of time in each but one is of higher quality and features hence why it deserves to cost more than the other.

Content is key, indeed. If there are just a handful of modes, a handful of maps, and anything beyond that costs extra, then the answer is no.

If there's a slew of modes and maps, and if subsequent new content is free or extremely cheap, then the answer is yes.

I bought DCUO when it first released, and it probably wasn't worth a full $60 at the time. Even so, there was a helluva lot more to do in DC Universe than there is in Titanfall. Replay value isn't really a question; the nature of any good multiplayer-heavy title is to have high replay value.

But the amount of content is another story entirely. And I think Titanfall may fall short there, in terms of justifying a $60 price tag.

The only games worth a full 60 in the past gen, TO ME have been from Bethesda...and I thoroughly mean that when I say the elder scrolls and fallout games were worth 60. Other games? Idk...sometimes I feel a little jipped.

I personally rarely play games by myself. If we're talking online multiplayer only, then it's probably not worth it to me. But if a game has local multiplayer, that's what I value, so I don't care about the singleplayer element.

All depends on the amount of content it contains not the amount of content you create out of it!

I.e. If I buy a MP game with 6 levels I'm paying for those 6 levels!

I don't care if I play those 6 levels for 800 hours that holds absolutely no bearing to the price of the game. You pay for the content that you buy. Stop allowing developers to publically raise their prices due to this stupid notion that we get far more out of it than they put in it!

It would be like buying a game with 15 levels but only playing it for 1 hour & deciding that's all I want to play so I'm only going to pay £5 for it. Developers wouldn't feel the same way about it then would they?

yep, I don't get why multiplayer only games get bashed but its okay for SP only to have a pass, im not sure but i think titanfall is getting more maps on disk than normal games with sp and multi, looking at infamous ss it has a long campaign. really it depends on content offered

Well we already have people who pay $60 for just the multiplayer anyways, so if a developer puts the money into the multiplayer that would normally be towards a single player they're just adjusting to demands and hopefully making the multiplayer better.

Yes, I would rather spend $60 on a MP-only game that i'll play for 100+ hours than a SP game that i'll beat in 10-20 hours and never play again. The ONLY single-player games I would fork out $60 for would be RPGs, because they typically have a lot of content and you can play through more than once, like Skyrim or Fallout (put 100+ hours into both). Games like Batman Arkham or Ryse: Son of Rome or Infamous or Bioshock are games I wouldn't put a full $60 out for because I simply won't have enough time to put into them compared to MP oriented games or RPGs

yep spend $60 dollars for a game with no real sense of objectives, no story, only thing you do is kill and shoot and thats pretty much it. But atleast you acknowledged a single player genre such as an RPG. That's your opinion, but videogames are not invented around MP. mario, legend of zelda, half life 2, god of war, uncharted, resident evil, final fantasy, metal gear are all single player games which you will gladly pay full price. your in the minority and thats your opinion. gamers mostly play MP just to play with friends and thats it. but nothing beats a single player experience.

I personally hate multiplayer and I dont play online. But if you like it then sure, why not.

I even acknowledge that if MP is your thing then it offers better value on a dollar to hour ratio. A single player game might last you 15 hours. You might play it twice or even 3 times making it 45 hours for 60 bucks.

An MP game you might play 2 or 3 hundred hours on it before you get bored so from a value viewpoint I dont see why its not worth it.